Posted on 11/15/2010 3:06:08 PM PST by TCH
Idiocy has its claws in the TEA Party movement!
I am a founding member of the TEA Party Patriots of SW Nebraska. I sure as hell do not approve of the recently released letter demanding that Republicans jettison "social issues!" Our group was never informed and had no input!
Ditch "social issues," that we may better focus on the economic issues? Is that so? I believe it is time for a TEA Party reality check.
You cannot promote prosperity at the expense of morality. One requires the other. God is not mocked. The Constitution may be document of incredible insight, but it is not supreme over God’s Law. Freedom requires responsible behavior... Abortion and sodomy do not qualify, and ignoring the consequences of both will result in our downfall.
Everything that affects society is a "social issue," but we are allowing ourselves to be deceived by the utopian nonsense that is Libertarianism. We do so at our peril. These individuals use the term "Social issues." WRONG! We are arguing moral and ethical issues. So what these individuals are actually stating is they want a government bereft of ethics and morality. GIVE US BREAD AND CIRCUSES!
From the beginning I stated my group is not going to be hijacked by Libertarians, and for good reason: Only fools jettison morality and ethics from government. Libertarians claim to “restore” the Constitution, while they march lock-step with the tenets of the Communist Manifesto. Libertarianism is nothing less than veiled Utopianism—a deadly poison to any ordered society, because its precepts mock God’s Law. While the Libertarian advocates the Constitution, he simultaneously disconnects its FIRST CAUSE, as stated in the Declaration of Independence: All men are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with an inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE and LIBERTY. There we have the crux of the issue. Those who established our government did so with the understanding that we are “created beings,” owing our life and liberty to a Creator, and therefore our first allegiance resulting from those created gifts must belong to the higher power. That fact explicitly requires a recognition of and obedience to transcendent moral laws established by that same Creator. However, according to the submitted “letter” endorsed by our State TEA Party leader, we should now acquiesce not to the Creator, but to men who are double-minded and thus unstable in all their ways! Thinking themselves wise they became as fools!
Notice the top signatory to this letter of “demands:” GOProud ... PROUD homosexuals of the GOP! Nice company we keep for the sake of "filthy lucre." Sacrificing moral principles under the pretense of "fiscal conservatism" will not save this country... I doubt any man of sound reason would believe in such nonsense. Abortion and homosexuality cost money: increased healthcare costs, increased insurance premiums, lost tax base, etc.
If a man fails to understand the most basic right, life, then why should we trust him with power? Such a man will give his assent to anything. What this “letter” actually states is that we want our liberty, but we do not want to pay for the consequences of its abuse! That is not liberty, it is licentiousness.
Perhaps the signatories to this "compact" do not grasp the concept that “social” issues COST THE TAXPAYER MONEY! Who pays for abortion? How many abortions are covered by insurance or government welfare? How many more may we expect via Obamacare? Consider the loss of national productivity that must be attributed to the increase in abortions--We are barely maintaining replacement population (mostly through illegal immigration); so what happens when all the baby boomers retire, and America’s workforce (ages 17-60) is reduced to a mere 14 percent of the population? Thank you to all those who demand we not consider abortion a front and center issue! They are contributing to the destruction of our culture and the downfall of our country! Oh, but wait.... they will decrease the size of government in the process! Blind fools!
Now let us turn the focus on the costs of homosexual perversion. Yes, there is a defined “normalcy” in sexuality... homosexual acts do not fall within that scope. All sexual perversion causes disease, but the homosexual variety produces a plethora of fatal infections, and not just those associated with AIDS. A great many more “nasty things” inhabit the bodies of homosexuals and lesbians as a direct result of their perverted sexual practices. If we ignore “social issues, ” then how will the unobstructed rise of these diseases impact medical care and insurance costs for those who live within the bounds of normal sexual behavior--particularly with the advent of socialized medicine--and the insistence that “pre-existing conditions” not be excluded from coverage or considered a dis-qualifier?
Libertarianism is like the Siren who attempts to convince the sailor there are no jagged rocks beneath those calm waters... A nation cannot separate social from fiscal issues... one entails the other. You cannot separate morality from government... one requires the other. Amoral or immoral men cannot govern themselves:
In 'A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly,' 1791, Edmund Burke wrote: “What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as they are disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good in preference to the flattery of knaves.”
Edmund Burke continued: “Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
Libertarians argue a "non-interference" perspective; but their rationale is a straw man argument. The issue is not about those who have an inclination to same-sex attraction. However unfortunate for them, it is a personal struggle, through which they must affect a strong combat for reasons of physiological, psychological and sociological necessity.
The issue is the propagation of an intrinsically destructive doctrine that opposes life and the common good. Even if we put aside the moral imperative—which act would constitute the greatest of errors, since the moral code is a product of sound reason and marks the boundaries of that singularly most quoted imperative “love thy neighbor”—it will still be proven that anything directed against its own natural purpose is contrary to right reason.
The two sexes are specifically designed so their physiological, biological and psychological aspects are mutually beneficial. Male and female complement one another, in all regards, to the natural end that their anatomy was specifically designed to affect: procreation of the species. This natural end logically supposes an intended purpose consistent with intelligent design.
Homosexual behavior is absolute in its destruction of that purpose. Understanding that “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” it is reasonable to state that Nature does not work against itself. By logical extension, and since all things must have a first cause, then neither would an intelligent supreme being create an natural order having as a component of its initial design a species directed to its own demise.
Reason and logic dictate that whenever any object is directed against its own natural purpose, then that object is intrinsically disordered. Since the design of male and female reproductive anatomy gives irrefutable evidence to its intended purpose, it is an attack on reason to presume that biology would be so rebellious of its own preservation as to willingly submit to an ends contrary to that which affords its greatest chance of success.
Homosexual behavior acts in direct opposition to the propagation of life, both directly in its physical acts, and psychologically by subverting the natural order of creation. It is anti-life, just as much as is abortion. Being unable to sustain itself through procreation, it may increase its numbers only by seduction--a point that the doctrine of libertarian thought purposely ignores, and which has a direct impact on society at every measurable level.
The argument that same-sex attraction is a product of genetic accident is easily refuted; for if such a gene were existent for any period of time, it would soon by its own actions render itself extinct, as do most unnatural mutations. Thus it is clear that the homosexual inclination is a product of external environmental stimulus and internal psychological impediments (intrinsically disordered desire). This distinction is important for reason that the state-enforced tolerance of intrinsically disordered behaviors (perversions) aligns perfectly with the anti-life philosophy that has imposed a literal death grip upon our culture. The rationale supporting this statement is the summation of those disorders, while still generally opposed, continue to advance, continue to realize great reinforcement through subversive indoctrination of the young, and thus continue to undermine true liberty with an emboldened narcissistic flattery that pretends itself tolerance.
Thus the libertarian argument of “non-interference” where willing parties engage in private acts not harmful to a non-interested party is a patently absurd and false doctrine. Such philosophy entails the shackling of human society in a suicide pact that is contrary to the development of a resilient culture, is destructive of a sustainable and prosperous economy, and exists in direct opposition to right reason and the moral imperatives derived through the Natural Law.
Ask the signers of this piece of libertarian trash if they are willing to sell their soul for 30 pieces of silver. If they are inclined to betray the common good, for the sake of "limited government and reduced taxes," then let them do so of their own accord; they do not speak for me, and I doubt they speak for most of the THINKING individuals within the TEA Party movement, whom understand the negative consequences connected with duplicity of mind on ethical and moral issues. I do not make deals with the Devil, and neither should the TEA Party do so in my name.
>>Man! It was WAR! We HATED each other. *ahem*
It was a war - but hatred is a bit too strong of a word. I never felt hated or hatred.
I would say that our relationship was energetically adversarial. ;-}
Imposing your interpretation of what the founders believed regarding liberty, religion, and the rights of a free man is every bit as twisted as what the Islamists preach. Freedom and liberty are not abstract concepts, and while our country was founded on Judeo Christian principles, the founders were wise enough to know there had to be a separation of church and state. IE no state religion. States have the right to determine the social issues which you seem so intent on imposing on everyone, it is not the role of the federal gov’t to do that.
Our founders may have spouted a lot of the religous quotes you found, but they also owned slaves, fathered numerous children out of wedlock with them, and otherwise lived not nearly as puritan life as you fantasize.
There ya go! If I wasn't half asleep I might have thought of putting it a little more eloquently. :-)
Great Post !
That pretty well sums up everything
that I’ve been thinking lately about how the
main stream media wants to define
the agenda for us.
The Tea Party Movement is Strong and
so Nebulous that they just can’t seem
to get a Death Grip on it.
Gotta keep it that way.
Well Said !
......THUNDER....
People have been conditioned to believe that their voice matters little, and the only reward they will earn for their trouble is that of marginalization. People want to be liked... and that is a natural inclination, but it is also a dangerous character flaw, born of selfishness. The victory belongs not to the faint of heart, but to those who risk all because it is right.
Another obstacle is that most people desire to realize the fruits of their labor, failing to realize that the greater prize is in knowing you fought on the side of truth, even if you do not see the victory.
Our enemies understand they may not realize the personal satisfaction of seeing victory in their lifetime, but that does not dissuade them from their efforts. We must possess no less resolve.
“Even an atheist is better off living in a Christian nation than any other.”
A profound observation.
Are you a liberal? Look at what is posted in red. Here - I'll post it twice for you - you seem to need it. Take issue with what you see and ping Jim with your two-faced gripes.
The Congress should not be funding pro homosexual activists, speical rights nor assigning special rights to sexual behaviors. We are talking about the meaning of the constitution in civic spirit within the Congress.
There is no agreement among the people that homosexual behavior should be awarded speical rights nor is there agreement within the public that homsexuality should be promoted within the schools in the name of sex education.
The courts...that is another animal and regardless of what the courts do, the Congress should not be inflicting a humanist belief structure found in a few liberal religious groups, upon the Nation as a whole. We are not all humanists and Congress must respect that to be acting in line with the spirit of the constitution’s protection of religion.
I am glad you are ready to argue for your case in front of a judge. I don’t think the constitution means squat to the body of case law anymore. We should make it mean something desirable in the civic realm.
The Tea Party has no business supporting or endorsing policies that are anathema to many of its supporters.
I have been posting on FR since before 2004 and it is only recently that I have noticed that it has taken a turn towards intolerance of opposing views. Facts are not trash talking, they are facts. The romanticized version of our countries founding and those who founded it conflicts with reality, and the holier than thou crowd to me is using their religion to justify their intolerance the same way the Jihadi;s use Islam.
Religous freedom means exactly that, free to believe whatever religion we want, or none at all. I think the Constitution gives us that right does it not?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
That's right. The Tea Party should not be endorsing homosexuality or abortion on demand, or any other liberal agenda.
That is what you meant, isn't it?
IBTZ.....
LOL... Good response... You get a prize!
If you check my id you will see I have been posting on FR for years, with my views decidely conservative. It is on the issue of what the TEA party repsresents that I go another direction from the social conservatives who have hijacked the movement. TEA Taxed Enough Already...fiscal issues first and last.
I hope.
Who then gets to decide what is moral and what is immoral? No governemnt is neutral, there are always laws which means legal/illegal and moral/immoral. So who do you think should make those decisions?
Our founders may have spouted a lot of the religous quotes you found, but they also owned slaves, fathered numerous children out of wedlock with them, and otherwise lived not nearly as puritan life as you fantasize.
So you think the founders' statements about their religious beliefs were hypocritical? And they one and all owned slaves, and one and all commited adultery and had bastard children? And anyone who doesn't think so is living in La La land?
So what.
It is on the issue of what the TEA party repsresents that I go another direction from the social conservatives who have hijacked the movement. TEA Taxed Enough Already...fiscal issues first and last.
Then you disagree with the sites owner. And you were given a link to his response TWICE.
The First Amendment restricts Congress from meddling in religion. It prohibits it from establishing a state religion and it prohibits it from preventing the free exercise thereof.
Laws which regulate moral behavior, and there are many that are rightly in place, are NOT the establishment of religion.
Take away laws that prohibit murder, rape, theft, lying, cheating, stealing, etc, and anarchy will result. Those are all moral behaviors determined by religion that you dis, that have laws established to protect people from.
Nannystate type laws aside, every law is a regulation by the government of moral behavior and that moral behavior is defined by Christianity.
Our society and culture and form of government will only work under the Judeo-Christian worldview because the morals it establishes are the only ones which allow for a peaceful, orderly society without the need for government regulation because the control on the people is internal, within themselves, not external, from the government.
Whining about *tolerance* is liberalspeak.
Equating Christianity and the moral system it gives us that allows for the freedoms we have to jihadist islam is intellectually dishonest and even worse liberal speak. It’s a manipulative tactic designed to turn people from the only reasonable belief system that can offer its followers true freedom.
Making that comparison has revealed you for the socialist liberal that you are.
If you want to see what society would be like without that interference from the *intolerant* “holier than thou crowd”, go check out North Korea and China. Tell us about how wonderful life was under Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot.......
I've been a member since 1998, and I haven't been chastened by Jim in recent memory.
Why in the world do you think JimRob would "warn" me? Ridiculous.
And since virtually 100% of this site's members are conservative, and there's plenty of headbutting going on, then I would assume that members are butting heads with other coservative members quite frequently...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.